Applied Kinesiology

Goodheart and the first method

George J. Goodheart Jr., a Michigan chiropractor, is credited as the founder of applied kinesiology (AK). A 1997 historical article in a chiropractic journal says that in 1964 he claimed to have corrected a patient's chronic winged scapula by pressing on nodules near the origin and insertion of the serratus anterior muscle. That finding led to the origin and insertion treatment, which the article describes as the first method developed in AK. It presents AK components as discovered largely by serendipity and observation, and it does not report controlled testing of that first case.

Methods added over time

The same account says later diagnostic and treatment procedures drew on ideas from other manual traditions. Neurolymphatic reflexes came from Frank Chapman, an osteopath, neurovascular reflexes from Terrence Bennett, a chiropractor, and cerebrospinal fluid flow from William Sutherland, an osteopath. Acupuncture meridian therapy was added under the influence of Felix Mann, and the vertebral challenge and therapy localization techniques were based on phenomena proposed by L. L. Truscott. The authors wrote in 1997 that scholarship on the topic had evolved but that research was in its infancy.

Professional organization

The International College of Applied Kinesiology (ICAK) is the professional body for AK. ICAK-USA states on its own site that the college was established in 1975 and that practice is restricted to professionals licensed to diagnose. A 2005 critical review in German describes the spread of the method through ICAK and through Touch for Health. Founding dates for ICAK vary between web pages, and only the ICAK-USA statement is used here.

Touch for Health is a related system that is aimed at a lay audience instead of licensed diagnosticians. A 2022 qualitative study describes Touch for Health-based kinesiology as a complementary therapy that draws on techniques from chiropractic, osteopathy and acupressure. The sources reviewed do not give a verified origin date for Touch for Health, so none is stated here.

Applied kinesiology as a named system

In this article, applied kinesiology means the system associated with Goodheart and ICAK, in which manual muscle testing is used to assess how a person's muscle function changes in response to physical, chemical or mental challenges. ICAK-USA describes the muscle test as a functional neurologic evaluation and describes AK as an interdisciplinary approach that is used alongside standard diagnostic methods. The term is distinct from muscle strength testing in ordinary orthopedic or neurological examination, a distinction that is central to the research debate described below.

Not the same as academic kinesiology

Kinesiology is also the name of a university discipline. The American Kinesiology Association defines it as an academic discipline that encompasses the study of physical activity and its impact on health, society and quality of life. The association states that the discipline is distinct from Applied Kinesiology and other fields that use the word. Research from academic kinesiology departments on movement, exercise or biomechanics is therefore not evidence about AK.

Related kinesiology systems

Reviewers use varied labels. A 2008 review covered what it called applied and specialized kinesiology as one literature, while two AK proponents replied in a letter that the review was mainly about Touch for Health and related techniques, which they say should be kept apart from AK as ICAK defines it. Studies of Health Kinesiology, Touch for Health and other muscle-response systems are therefore cited here only where the system studied is named, and results should not be carried across systems.

Manual muscle testing in AK

A narrative review in a chiropractic journal says AK uses submaximal manual break tests, in which the examiner applies gradually increasing pressure to see whether the muscle can resist, and grades the result on a binary scale. According to the review, applied kinesiologists use these tests to follow short-term changes in muscle function after a challenge. The review adds that many muscle-testing studies did not report their test parameters consistently, such as duration and peak force, which limits replication.

AK-affiliated authors describe the proposed rationale in neurological terms. In their model, muscle-test responses change with facilitation and inhibition after a sensory stimulus, and the examiner compares the response with the pattern expected from known neuroanatomy. They present this as an addition to standard diagnostic measures and not a replacement. The model is a proposal by proponents, and the sources reviewed here do not report it as tested.

Challenges and added procedures

The history article lists several procedures built into the system, including reflex-point methods, therapy localization and vertebral challenge. ICAK-USA says the muscle tests are used to monitor responses to physical, chemical or mental stimuli, so a challenge in this sense is a stimulus presented while a muscle is tested. The sources reviewed do not describe a standard session length or a standard sequence, and practice is likely to vary between practitioners.

Uses reported in the sources

The sources reviewed describe AK being used to assess musculoskeletal problems such as sacroiliac joint dysfunction, to investigate suspected food intolerance and allergy, to assess nutrient status, and to evaluate temporomandibular and dental occlusion questions. These are uses that proponents or studies have described. They are listed as claims and uses, not as findings that the practice is suited to those purposes.

Client perspectives in a related system

A qualitative study of 13 clients of Touch for Health-based practices reports that they perceived greater self-awareness, wellbeing and self-care, and they valued the feedback from muscle testing. This reflects how some clients describe their experience in a related system. It does not test whether the muscle response is valid or whether any health outcome changed.

Reviews of the literature

A 2007 narrative review co-authored by Goodheart reported good reliability and validity of manual muscle testing in neuromusculoskeletal dysfunction, based on more than 100 studies. A published critique by chiropractic researchers argued that the review did not separate general muscle strength testing from AK's own diagnostic procedures, and that the few studies of AK-specific procedures either refute or cannot support their validity. The critique concluded that evidence does not support using muscle testing to diagnose organic disease or subclinical conditions.

A 2008 review of 22 studies of applied and specialized kinesiology found poor methodology, and concluded that there was insufficient evidence for diagnostic accuracy, the validity of the muscle response, or effectiveness for any condition. Earlier, a 1990 review of 50 papers published by ICAK between 1981 and 1987 found that none of the 20 research papers met all seven chosen methodological criteria.

Blinded studies of diagnostic validity

Several blinded studies tested AK or related muscle tests against a reference. In a 1988 study, three experienced applied kinesiologists assessed 11 subjects for four nutrients, and the authors reported no significant agreement between examiners and no correlation with laboratory tests. A 1988 BMJ article on kinesiology and food allergy is described in a later commentary as a double-blind study with no test-retest reproducibility, but its text could not be read here.

In 2001, four examiners of Health Kinesiology tested seven patients with confirmed wasp venom allergy under blinding, and the overall kappa was 0.03, with sensitivity of 40 percent and specificity of 60 percent. The same year, a study of 315 children found moderate test-retest reliability (kappa 0.62) but no agreement between testers (kappa -0.01), and no significant agreement with RAST, a specific IgG test or a lactose breath hydrogen test. A 2013 double-blind study of 51 participants found that the toxic vial was identified in 80 of 151 trial sets (53 percent).

Findings that point the other way

Some reports are more favorable. An AK-affiliated pilot of 17 subjects who tested positive on screening reported that serum tests confirmed 19 of 21 suspected food reactions, although it included only people who had screened positive. A 2020 study of 20 people in Brazil reported sensitivity of 0.89 and specificity of 0.82 for a piriformis muscle test against four orthopedic tests for sacroiliac dysfunction. Both studies were small.

Dental and other uses

A 2020 narrative review of AK in dentistry retrieved one study on temporomandibular disorder and one on dental material testing. The authors concluded that AK for diagnosing or treating dental conditions is not supported by scientific evidence, although they noted that changes in muscle strength have been observed alongside changes in dental occlusion. The PubMed searches run for this page did not surface randomized trials of AK as a treatment.

Indirect harms named in the sources

The sources reviewed do not describe direct physical injury from the muscle test itself. The concerns they raise are indirect. An allergy review that includes AK among unvalidated food allergy tests says such tests may lead to unnecessary elimination diets. The 2008 review of the literature found insufficient evidence for diagnostic accuracy, so a result from the test may not match a person's actual condition. These concerns come from reviews of the category and were not measured in AK users.

Care boundaries

The allergy review describes the oral food challenge as the gold standard for diagnosing IgE-mediated food allergy, with serum IgE and skin prick testing as acceptable alternatives. The blinded studies cited above report poor agreement between AK findings and laboratory tests in the settings tested, so an AK result cannot be treated as confirming or excluding a medical condition on the basis of these sources. Anyone with symptoms that need diagnosis, such as a possible allergic reaction, should not delay or replace conventional care.

Training and standards

ICAK-USA states that practice is limited to licensed health professionals, that its basic course is more than 100 hours, and that its diplomate pathway requires at least 300 hours of instruction, three years of practice, two research papers and written and practical examinations. These are the professional body's own standards. The sources reviewed do not verify any statutory regulation of AK, and standards for Touch for Health and other kinesiology systems were not verified.